There are two active timelines in Citadel: Honey Bunny – one following the events of 1992 and the other 2000, two deliberately stationed timelines that would automatically attract many pop-references. This also means that the events of Honey Bunny act as a precursor to that of Citadel which is essentially set in the modern era. The drama opens with the introduction of two characters in the era of the 2000s – you see Honey (Samantha Ruth) being rather meticulous with her child while dropping her to school, one that is seeded with mysteries. There seems no real threat in the vicinity, yet the instructions to the child Nadia (Kashvi Majmundar) are clear. The action shifts to an earlier timeline of 1992 with the supposed introduction of Bunny (Varun Dhawan), a Bollywood stuntman who literally has a dual life while working for a secret agency. Honey then, is a struggling actor mostly reduced to side roles and being frequented with casting couch, a popular reference to the Hindi Film Industry during the day. A random recruitment following a thrilling sequence at a hotel ensures that Honey and Bunny are a team, which in a sharp turn of events may not hold true in the 2000s wherein there is no sign of Bunny. The attack though does take place that leads to an emotional revelation while the story essentially follows the beats to tie the two worlds together.

The one interesting thing of note between the two eras is the difference in the tone – there is a frivolous energy to the turn of events unfolding in the year 1992, as compared to a more dense and palpable sense of tension even as Honey turns to the streets with Nadia, closely being followed by unknown entities. One of the beauties of this format of storytelling is that there are a bag of secrets that spill at frequent moments in the screenplay, as opposed to a more linear narrative that you witness in Citadel. The playfulness though soon dries up with the revelation of a plan, even as you continue to jostle between perceptions and perspectives, largely being unsure on which agency is on the right side of the law. And the other timeline gives you a fair idea about other characters including Bunny who makes a late entrant in the setup, even as your curiosity reaches its pinnacle on the state that the characters find themselves in the current timeline.

The era of the 90s brings with it several pop-culture references, some of which are meta too. If a VHS tape of Gair Kanooni(1989) becomes a reference point for the budding relationship of Honey and Bunny, their daughter is essentially named Nadia (and you know that this is the same character essayed by Priyanka Chopra Jonas in Citadel) after the fearless Nadia, the Australian-Indian stunt woman from the 90s. There are a couple of references from Raj and DK’s filmography as well – a scene in the hotel reveals the addition of a certain ‘struggling’ actor Bhuvan being called ‘Farzi’ (Bhuvan Arora was on the show Farzi), or ‘Main Dilli Se Hun B*enc*od’ references from Go Goa Gone featuring the fake face-off between characters Chacko (Shivankit Parihar) and Ludo (Soham Majumdar). Even the use of technology is shown to be basic given its era, something that largely contributes to its humour. In a scene, you see web interactions between ‘Break Dancer’ and ‘Albert Pinto’. There are several easter eggs to be discovered even as the characters indulge in the larger game of upmanship (between agencies) while indulging in some brilliantly captured action setpieces, in each of the two eras.

The issue with the show however, is the limitation of the spy universe that is created, something that is largely mediocre and formulaic with its approach. So once the twists start to pile up, and the picture starts to get clearer regarding the motivation and fate of the characters, the stakes in the drama begin to flatten out. One of the issues that I had with the screenplay was its characterization, particularly of characters accompanying Honey Bunny that never really rise above the ordinary. The face of the antagonist remains skewed given that there is no clear motivation of how things stand the way they are. Some of the twists at the end just taper off, given that they didn’t quite have an immediate impact on the screenplay (and we shall wait to see how this universe shapes up). The finale action set piece is exhilarating and so well choreographed but the payoff at the end is rather disappointing given that there were so many answers left unanswered. I would have ideally liked the writing to close some of the threads, because the cliffhanger at the end did not quite leave an impact. It was almost like a runner dominating the proceedings for most parts of the narrative, only to taper off at the end. And this ending is what fails to make Honey Bunny memorable, although the screenplay has plenty of moments to entertain and engage its viewers.